9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 740 - AT - Service TaxExtended Period of Limitation Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on commission - Waiver of Pre-deposit - The show cause notice is issued on 08.02.2011 by invoking extended period Held that - The extended period cannot be invoked in cases like this - Prima facie, any amount which is beyond the period of limitation is hit by time bar - the amount of commission paid by the appellant within the period of limitation from the date of issuance of show cause notice needs to be directed as pre-deposit, as the issue is debatable one Appellant is directed to submit the amount as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal Partial stay granted.
Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid by the appellant for commission agent services; Invocation of extended period of limitation in the show cause notice. Analysis: The judgment by Mr. M.V. Ravindran of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed the issue of denial of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid by the appellant for commission agent services. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a previous case. The show cause notice in question invoked the extended period of limitation, dated 08.02.2011, covering the period from May 2005 to August 2010. The appellant contended that the invocation of the extended period was not valid, as any amount beyond the period of limitation is time-barred. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.1,40,000 within eight weeks and report compliance before the Deputy Registrar. The tribunal found that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in cases like this, where the issue was debatable. The appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1,40,000 within a specified time frame. The compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar, who would then present the file before the Bench for further action. The judgment allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount, with recovery stayed until the appeals were disposed of. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and the subsequent reporting to the authorities for further proceedings.
|
